Idea how to implement VT/VO compatibility in JVM

Palo Marton palo.marton at gmail.com
Fri Jan 9 18:38:16 UTC 2015


>
> See Albert Noll's post about heisenboxes, which is one piece of a story
> that could address one piece of this.
>

I have tried to google this, but without success. Can you please send a
link to that post?


> Where this approach runs out of gas is when data hits the heap: layout of
> flattened value fields in objects, and layout of flattened value elements
> in arrays.  (These are the same challenges as the "erase to Any" approach.)
>

I know that this does not work for arrays (have mentioned that in the post).

For object field it should work this way:

Descriptor of such field will be "VT erased" to boxed class and metadata
will indicate that the field was actually declared as VT. When JVM loads
such class, it checks the metadata and lays out the class according to
that. The field will be flattened inside the object. This will also change
semantic of "getfield" and "putfield" instructions for such field. In
interpreter getfield will read flattened data and box it on heap, putfield
will write flattened data into the object. In JITed code it will do the
best think possible.


>
> The VM let's you override methods, and with bridge methods or other
> techniques, we can effectively "override" method signatures.  But the VM
> doesn't have any such capability for fields.  Once you say a field is of
> type Object, that's the type.
>
> Think about Box:
>
> class Box<any T> {
>     T t;
> }
>
> We want Box<int> to have a single field that behaves like an 'int' without
> boxing and without taking more than four bytes of data payload.  That's the
> fundamental sticking point with most of the alternate suggestions; they
> don't have a path to get there.


My idea was about implementation of value types, not about generic
specialization. So I am not sure what you mean here. Did you meant Box
being value type?



>
> On 1/9/2015 12:37 PM, Palo Marton wrote:
>
>> (See this thread:
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/valhalla-dev/2015-
>> January/000710.html)
>>
>> Main idea is to move information about using VT from method descriptors
>> to metadata.
>>
>> E.g. for method
>>
>> double distanceTo(point p);
>>
>> the corresponding method descriptor will “pretend” that the actual
>> parameter is boxed object reference, like (LPoint;)D. But in metadata
>> (could be eg. parameter annotation in class that declares the method) it
>> will indicate that this is actually value type. This way the method
>> descriptor for VT and VO will be the same and VO based code should
>> actually be able to call VT based method. (note: this “VT erasure”
>> should not be done for arguments like ‘point p[]’ as array of VT is very
>> different from array of VO).
>>
>> Of course such change will require a bit different implementation of VT
>> in JVM.
>>
>> One big issue with such implementation is that when mixing VT/VO code,
>> situation may arise where one method overrides other method and they
>> have different VT flags for their arguments/result, which means that
>> they have also different calling convention for JITed code. The same may
>> happen when implementing interface. This may be solved by allocating
>> another slot in vftable for that function and filling original slot with
>> some small bridge code that will handle needed boxing/unboxing and call
>> method from the right vftable slot. So in case of mixed VT/VO code there
>> may be multiple slots for one method (=method descriptor) in vftable.
>> Big change, I know…
>>
>> Other issue is that if we move info about VT from method descriptor to
>> metadata, we should do the same also for bytecode of method. So bytecode
>> will manipulate VT values using normal reference instructions (aload,
>> astore, …). This also means that JVM interpreter will use only boxed VT
>> values. It is a performance penalty for interpreter, but may be this is
>> not so important as most code will be JITed. JIT compiler can utilize
>> information from metadata to do more aggressive stack/register
>> allocation (no escape analyses is needed for VT values) and better
>> argument passing and result returning.
>>
>> There are many other issues with this. For some of them I see solution,
>> but there are probably many “devils in details” that I can not see.
>>
>>
>> Question: Have you considered such approach to VT? It basically means
>> that VT is implemented as value object for which JIT can do more
>> aggressive optimizations thanks to metadata included in places where it
>> was used as VT in the source code.
>>
>


More information about the valhalla-dev mailing list